Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., respondent, v. Inez Baron, appellant. (2014)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., respondent, v. Inez Baron, appellant.

2012–03888 (Index No. 17080 /09)

Decided: March 26, 2014

THOMAS A. DICKERSON, J.P. CHERYL E. CHAMBERS LEONARD B. AUSTIN SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

Inez Baron, Lido Beach, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Submitted—February 11, 2014

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), dated March 8, 2012, which denied her motion to vacate a prior order of the same court entered November 22, 2011, granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion for summary judgment.

ORDERED that the order dated March 8, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

In order to vacate her default in opposing the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the defendant was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for her default and a potentially meritorious defense (see Donovan v. Chiapetta, 72 AD3d 635; Aurora Loan Servs. v. Grant, 70 AD3d 986; Political Mktg., Int'l, Inc. v. Jaliman, 67 AD3d 661). Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for her default or the existence of a potentially meritorious defense. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied her motion.

DICKERSON, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network